On Jun 2, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> A back-branch-only fix would look the same except for not having any
> unannotated filenames. I'm too lazy to go trolling for one just now.
God Tom, you're such a bloody slacker. Sheesh!
> It's also possible to get it to produce histories that include only
> the patches on particular branches.
>
> I'm not by any means wedded to the details of this printout format;
> it's
> kinda ugly in fact. The point that I want to make is that I can
> look at
> the commit history in a summary form that just shows me the commit
> message,
> date/time/committer, affected file(s) and branch(es), and is not picky
> about whether the changes were byte-for-byte the same in each branch
> (because they hardly ever are). The project's entire commit history
> for, hm, probably the last ten years is specifically designed to be
> able to get this type of report out of the repository, and we're going
> to be pretty seriously unhappy if git is not able to replicate this
> functionality.
I should think that it'd be pretty damned easy to generate such a
report from a Git repository's log. `git log` is extremely powerful,
and provides a lot of interfaces for hooking things in and sorting.
It's eminently do-able.
Best,
David